Saturday, 16 October 2010

Evil is Evil

Evil is evil. Evil has no remorse, no sense of guilt or decency.

Values, for Evil, are not irrelevant, nor inexistent, as many might think. Evil uses these “values” for his own profit, so he not only must he understand them fully as he's able extricate the maximum out of them.

Emotional blackmail is a tool that Evil finds particularly fond to use. All in the name of expected "respect", "gratefulness" or even "love". All the best of values, only intentionally misused.

Psychological violence is the greatest pain one can inflict. Physical pain can be identified, and be treated either by containment or battle, but any blow to the self-esteem wounds a person in uncharted places of his being, scars that remain left bleeding for a lifetime.

Another tool Evil loves to use is goodness. The use of words like “Child Protection” immediately causes a sympathetic reaction from the listener, and if you’re on a convincing path, you’ve, with just two words, made “half way” through a very simple and very convincing stroke. Very simple, very effective.  

Evil knows, and Evil uses this method so frequently. Added bonus is the fact perceived that anyone opposing whoever claims to be "protecting children" can only be evil, independent if it’s the devil himself, horns and tail, who uses them.  

Evil branding others as evil and getting away with it. Can't get any more perverse than that, can it?

That’s why the Black Hats immediately, and purposefully, make the association that anyone that is against CEOP MUST and CAN ONLY BE a paedophile, or, at least a pro-paedophile. Basic exploitation of basic concepts. If you’re not for me, you’re against me, and if you’re against me, you’re my worst enemy. Nothing less will do.  

CEOP, Child Exploitation and Online Protection, four awesomely powerful words, that one just cannot go against. You simply CANNOT go against anyone that states they’re "protecting children". Or can one?

Yes, one can. And one should.

Because THAT expression is either naïve, or Evil, and I’ll explain why.

But before explaining how distorted it is the use of the expression, let me just say another thing. In the sick, repulsive mind of a paedophile, there’s, say the experts in the matter, a concept that he/she REALLY thinks that his/her actions are GOOD, when they’re cruelly molesting a child.

I will not get into the the paedophilic pleasure felt from the sadism or from the overpowerment of an helpless weak human being. Just saying here that paedophiles that have a preference for victims within in the age range of 10/14, think they are doing a great job in initiating their victim in their sexual life. That they are teaching them the facts of life as they should be taught.

They REALLY think that they are being the best pals to that victim that is suffering indescribable pain. That’s how distorted is the mind of these ignominious, horrible, people. And that’s how I think twice when somebody calls him or herself a “child protector” of children OTHER than their own.

And that is the relevant point.

Let me then use a simple an analogy of you being responsible to keep a given fox away from a given chicken coop. A chicken coop owned by someone else. You're just contracted to guarantee that the fox DOES NOT get to the chicken coop's owner's chicken.

Would you call yourself a "Fox Hunter" or a "Chicken Protector"? Would you “communicate” with the chicken, explaining to them the dangers of the fox, or would your focus be on the fox itself?

Would it even occur to you to place a “fox-button” on the fence so that any chicken whenever they felt the presence of the predator, would beak it and warn you? Isn't the “communication”, to the chickens, of the specifics, characteristics and potentialities, of the threat and the respective danger it represented to the them be CLEARLY the responsibility of the chicken coop owner, and not yours?

The interest for the safeguard of the chickens is primary his, not yours. Your interest is that you contribute the best way possible that the chickens remain safeguarded from the threat, as that will mean the owner's satisfaction and your payment.

So it is your responsibility to inform him, in the best way possible, what he can do to face the threat, and not the chickens themselves. They are like children, they lack judgement to understand what really is at stake, and it's his job, not yours, to protect them, his responsibility, not yours.

He’s has to take the necessary actions to protect his chicken, not you. You should give him the “fox-button”, so that he could warn you, and not to the chickens themselves, although ANY "fox-button" is of dangerous use, even by adults, as I'll explain in another post.

A fox is predator, and the chicken only realizes that when its too late. That's the unfortunate truth for the chicken and the basis for the fox to guarantee its own feeding. That's why the "fox-button" would be ridiculous.

Unless your objectives to putting up one would other than the apparent intent. But that's another issue, not for this post.

Your MAIN job would be to understand the fox’s motives, techniques and preference of victims, and act in to prevention. Your job is to hunt and catch the animal, or, at least. convince him that that chicken coop is a worthless target.  

CEOP is a farce. If you want to implement child protection organization, then let me suggest the creation, not of a QUANGO (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization), but of a TANGO (Totally Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization) fully dedicated to this objective.

I call it the People Absolutely Responsible for Effective Notion of Total Safety (PARENTS). PARENTS would be only volunteer based, and would only be responsible for all those underage within THEIR own household.

The tax-payer wouldn’t have to pay a single cent for PARENTS.

PARENTS wouldn't have an HQ nor a President /Chairman / Whatever pompous title.

PARENTS would be made up of simple volunteers, hundreds of millions of them, already existing and already distributed evenly throughout all possible households.

Supporting PARENTS, the Police, in all its strength. A department specialized in paedophilia. Police officers who would have the ungrateful task of posing as these horrific criminals, so they could infiltrate the most heinous of worlds.

Humble heroes that would find fulfillment in each and every monster captured and brought publicly to justice.

Mr Gamble is evil. That’s a fact.

And the way he has used the words “Children”, “Exploitation” and “Protection” only is further proof of the stated.

Three powerful words, and when combined, become simply gigantic, as gigantic is their misuse.

For me, paedophilia is only second to another in the worst of crime list. There’s one that beats it quite clearly in gruesomeness: the intentional profit from paedophilia.  

Mr. Gamble is correct when he says he ran a “Children Exploitation” center, because that is EXACTLY what he did.

 And before you dare say that I’m withdrawing these two words out of context by withdrawing the other two, Online Protection, do reread what I’ve written about who I think should be responsible for all “Children Protection”, ON and OFFLINE.


  1. It is unfortunate that there is much information on the net, and dubbed the black hats do not know find the necessary information so as not to be donkeys.

    Donkeys wear blinders so as not to look anywhere else. Only one direction.

    The black hats must be assiduous readers of string literature and should be instructed to "answer".

    The donkey is an animal friendly and intelligent.

    But at this point, the black hats are not at all. They're sad without autonomy.
    It is really sad to see so much poverty.


  2. British Claire16 Oct 2010, 20:11:00

    Absolutely brilliant article, thank you. I just couldn't agree more with it. As a parent of two children I have never felt CEOP had anything to offer me. I actually WANT to protect my own children and would never leave that job to a distant organisation operating outside of normal law enforcement.

  3. Brilliant article, panic buttons do not work, it is down to PARENTS.

    How many times have we watched the NSPCC adverts when the child is being abused and the message given out is "... abuser has told his victim he will harm him if he tell" or "nobody would believe them".

    Do people not realise that a "panic" button on facebook will be used against a victim as wel? Do people not think that a potential threat will have not used some sort of emotional blackmail, like "if you report me via the panic button, they will take you away from your parents, because they are not monitoring what you are doing".

    These people that prey on the vulnerable will use every evil trick in the book, to make their intended victim feel too frightened to speak out.

    Panic buttons don't work, PARENTS do, that is provided that they are interested in what their children do online. PARENTS that think allowing their child free reign on a computer to get them out of their hair really do need to be educated in what being a parent is really all about.

  4. TotallyConfused17 Oct 2010, 10:43:00

    Excellent piece. This is what I have been trying to say for years- I believe in REAL child protection of REAL children. To abuse our parental love and wish to protect our children for profit is child abuse in its own form-it exploits children (and their parents by the way) and makes children at REAL risk less likely to get the help and support they require and deserve.

    Further, the intervention of a quango and the good reverend Jim has made REAL child protection more difficult. It makes us as parents less likely to support each other and protect each others children.

    I will give an example. Many years ago, I had a neighbour. She was an older single mother. She kept a spotless home and loved her daughter dearly. But she was on a list for a kidney transplant. Coping with an energetic small child was exhausting. I simply opened my door to the child (she was one year older than my oldest)This little girl was able to freely move between my house and her mother across the street. The mother always knew where her child was if she was not at home. The mother could be sure that on the days she was exhausted, her child was getting a hot evening meal, a bath, homework done, a bed time story, a warm bed for the night, got to school on time the next morning and even got the occasional evening out at a church youth club or pizza/bowling/cinema/etc.

    Did I ever think to report this mother as unfit or neglectful?NO (thank god- and mother thanked me often)

    Thanks to Jimbo and his mates, now adays, I would have been accused of 'grooming' this child.

    By the way, this little girl grew up to become an engineer in the UK military. She never dabbled in drugs, sex (but in my house was exposed to lots of rock and roll)and finished her education.

    Would I have been so willing to do this 15 years later? Honestly NO- because my motives would have been questioned due to the paedogedon as promoted by Gamble and his club who view our children as a profit centre.

  5. I posted a comment here before, on another article, about something I read in a UK newspaper. A lady that worked in a school cafeteria gave an extra cookie to one of the children who had asked for one and was told she was not allowed to do that, it could be seen as "grooming" the child!!!
    And I bet there are lots of absurd stories like this one happening all the time, gentle, honest people getting into trouble over nothing.

  6. TC, that is the trouble, through fear of being accused we are now distancing ourselves and becoming less of a community.

    I can remember being younger, having the freedom, and being just a child with no worries. My parents knew where I was, who I was with and there was never this fear.

    I was talking to my mum the other day about being younger and the times I had accidents, honest I could break a leg falling over a feather, and how in todays age my mum would have been a prime candidate for being an abuser when in all honestly she just had one accident-prone, clumsy child. Mind you I am still as accident prone today and I was all those years ago and my son followed in his mum's footsteps, except this time it was the old-man that was getting the looks from A & E when I fell in the door and smashed my face on the radiator. LOL

  7. I've been involved in child protection and I cheered when I heard Gamble was going. There is something very sinister going on and I have my own informed view about what it is. If I can work it out with some basic research, I'm sure our political leaders have.

  8. The logo of Capital Eye Policing is very similar to CEOP's.

  9. Congratulations on writing such a brilliant article in a language that is not your mother tongue - you have come up with a brilliant analogy if I may say so. Gamble gives the impression of being a most sinister and manipulative person - I would personally never leave a child alone with him, so what kind of person can he be to be heading up this weird organisation CEOP? It appears to be simply a front to enable real paedophiles to encourage and protect each other, while accusing anyone who sees through their tactics of being a paedophile themselves. Truly breathtaking in its brazenness.

  10. Anon @12.53

    The child given the biscuit was reported to be a relative of the woman who gave it to the child.

    If so we can't give our nephews, nieces, cousins, siblings a biscuit now????

  11. The CEOP is a mask to protect parents like the Mccann's, who:
    - said that dinning with friends( a dinner full of alcohol) in a Resort restaurant away from the flat where they left their toddlers unsupervised, in a foreign country, is the same as having a barbecue on their home garden.
    - ring the alarm knowing imediately that their child was abducted by a Paedo.
    -use their childs activity book to set a timeline with their friends in order to distort the last hours of their daughter and fool the police.
    - even after knowing that their child was abducted did not call the police and when a neighbour ask them if they already called the police, they lie saying YES. Somebody from the Resort called the police thinking that the case could be serious.
    -Did not search their daughter on the night she disappeared.
    -Set a business based on the image and the tragedy of their child.
    -Call the Media with a fabricated story and guide the media in order to blame the police and everybody else then themselves, for what happened.
    -know in advance that their child missing will be a long term mission.
    -Pay expensive lawyers and clown detectives instead of offering a ramson to who could have or could have seen their child.
    - Blame everybody for what happened with their child and still believing that they are care and responsible parents.
    -Avoid any reconstruction of the events if asked by any official police.
    -Keep going back to the crime scene( Humm...Loccard methode used by all investigators show that the criminals always came back to the crime scene).
    THE CEOP REALLY HELP PARENTS LIKE THE MCCANN'S advising them TO SET A FUND, SET A BUSINESS, HIRE LAWYERS AND PRIVATE DETECTIVES and work against every official evidence grabbed by official polices. The poor childs don't even appeared at the end of the line, were just ignored, like if they never were real.
    Who is Madeleine for her parents and the CEOP? A real child who had a Physical body and a brain sensible to pain and abandonment, or a spirit floating forever to feed their agenda and their successful business?

  12. Having worked professionally with sex offenders, they are often quite brazen in their behaviour and can charm their way into the lives of vunerable people. Making their way into jobs involving potential victims is par for the course. Speaking out against the behaviour the actually indulge in can be part of their repetoire

  13., Updated: 08/10/2010 21:16
    Grooming warning 'took the biscuit'

    The dinner lady said it was okay for the pupil to have a biscuit
    Education chiefs in Northern Ireland have been eating humble pie after claims a school dinner lady was warned she could be open to an allegation of grooming for allowing a child to have a biscuit.

    The education body covering St Mary's Primary School in Brookeborough, Co Fermanagh, has been asked to apologise to the unnamed woman for the way it investigated the incident.

    The controversial warning said to have been issued to the dinner lady came to light after an investigation by the Northern Ireland Ombudsman.

    A child at the school had asked if they could have a biscuit and the woman had told a canteen colleague it was okay to hand the pupil the snack.

    The woman's husband said his wife had never been accused of grooming, but claimed the school told her she could have left herself open to the accusation.

    After being called to a series of meetings with senior school staff, she made a complaint over the issue to the governing Western Education and Library Board (WELB).

    Her husband said she had endured a nightmare since the saga began in 2008, as rumour and gossip had spread while the issue was dealt with. He said: "It has been a horrendous two-plus years for my wife because there was a shadow hanging over her that she had done something wrong."

    The details have emerged in the region's Impartial Reporter newspaper which claimed the confidential ombudsman's report was critical of how the board had handled the case.

    A spokesperson for the WELB said: "The Board has noted the findings of the Ombudsman's Report issued in September 2010 and is presently actioning the recommendations.

    "Neither the Board nor any of its employees were, at any time, party to any accusation of grooming against the Unit Catering Supervisor referred to in recent press reports."
    Biscuit Story

    On another subject seems Jim Gamble also lost the Chair of the VGT back in December 2009

    Jim Gamble is no longer Chair of VGT

  14. There seem to be different laws for doctors.Dr Christopher Lattimer was arrested for accessing images of children at his place of work in a Margate hospital in 2004. He was allowed to continue as a doctor after a period of time. So it is possible he is seeing children as patients now and their parents may be blissfully unaware of his past record. This was all reported in the press at the time, so in the public domain

  15. Thank you to Bren (9.51) for the update on the "biscuit affair".

    It's a silly subject, all the time wasted in dealing with things like this, and as the saying goes "time is money"(tax payers money down the drain).

    Oh, I am glad I live in Portugal and not the UK! We have many shortcomings, but still have some common sense and a less paranoid society/state when it comes to dealing with children! If the situation here was like in the UK I would have been in deep trouble, under suspicion, labelled as a "child groomer" no doubt!
    My son entered "kindergarten" when he was 4, and got very well with all the class mates, but made a close friendship with another boy there (they are good friends to this day, now both 21), they were both the same sort of children, quiet, not boistereous, enjoyed the same games, etc., they bonded really well. Well, my point is, this boy came to my house many many times to play, his mother and me became good friends. She worked long hours and I was a "stay at home mum" and had the time to do things she usually could not do. Many times I took care of both her children(she had a 3 year old boy too), I would pick them up from school when she could not, or would have them in my house if they were sick and could not attend school and she could not stay away from work, took them for days out on holiday time, to the zoo, museums, the beach, etc.
    I'm recalling with nostalgia the many wonderful days whe had visiting Lisbon's Expo 98, and how much fun they had. Their parents worked very hard, they struggled to make ends meet and were very grateful that a friend would take their children under her wing and give them the opportunity to do things and go places they would not be able to.
    From what I read about the UK, I and my friend would have been asking for trouble for this kind of things. Very sad...

  16. People in power,ie Gordon Brown,will always put people in positions of authority who have the same inclinations etc as they themselves have,could that be why Brown put Gamble as head of CEOP?,maybe they are cut from the same cloth eh.

  17. ''paedophiles that have a preference for victims within in the age range of 10/14, think they are doing a great job in initiating their victim in their sexual life.''

    Please take a look at the beliefs and arguments of Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield, who posts on many boards alonside TC. Ask her why she is friendly with him.
    Oldfield is a real paedophile who served time for an 11,000 image collection. And no, he hasn't reformed. I want to know why TC gives the creep the time of day. Don't you? Look at the site, you will find them both there.

  18. Anon 7:26,

    I do not know who Dr. Nigel Oldfield is, but from your wording I may deduce that he’s an Oree.

    As I’ll say in a later post, let Dr. Nigel Oldfield, whoever he may be, defend himself in a fair, transparent and public trial.

    If he’s found guilty as charged, Dr. Nigel Oldfield will have my full loath, added with my disgust for having used, what I believe to be, the enormous injustice brought upon the majority of the Orees to try and get out of the accountability of a repulsive crime.

    If he’s found innocent, Dr. Nigel Oldfield will have my full sympathy, added with my solidarity for having endured, what I believe to be, the enormous injustice brought upon the majority of the Orees.

    A fair and square trial, untainted by interests other than those of Justice. Exactly what we ask for the McCanns.

    About TC, you should know better than to even try and turn me against her. If you are amongst those who’re responsible for the fate that has befallen on her, shame on you. If you’re not, show some respect for someone who has suffered, blameless, incommensurable pain.

    Anon 9:55,

    I also do not know who Dr. Lattimer is, so the same words that I’ve just wrote about Dr. Nigel Oldfield are applicable.

    If he’s guilty as charged, besides the adequate punishment, e also should be discharged from all his duties as a doctor. If he’s innocent, I see no reason for even to pronounce his name.

    We, at this blog do not pre-judge people, nor seek public lynching. We seek Justice, and Justice has its appropriate forum.

  19. Dr Christopher Lattimer was charged with the offences in court.If he is an Ore victim, then I agree with you Textusa. Your same sentiments apply if he is not.

  20. TotallyConfused20 Oct 2010, 12:49:00

    I love the assumption that just because I happen to post on a public forum that some others do, this automatically makes me into something I am not.

    Do I know who Dr Oldfield is? Yes. Do I agree with his world view and his views on human sexuality- NO. (which he is quite aware of) Is he a worthy opponent when discussing philosophical and moral issues? Yes.

    I may not agree with Dr. Oldfield, but expressing an opinion is not illegal and I will defend anyone's rights to free speech.

    I hope that sets the record straight.

    Oh and anonymous- congratulations- you have proven my complete point. You have accused me of guilt by association. That is one of the true dangers to society and children at the present time.

  21. TC, thank you for your response.

    I have received some links about Dr. Nigel Oldfield, not pleasant to the gentleman, as well as comment from gentleman himself where he tells me, not suggest nor asks, to “stop yabbering on and sending 'secret' investigations to others, about me” and to contact him directly to ask him about anything or be the case that I were to be “twitchy”.

    In this blog we’re only verifiable and factual information about the treatment they (or others) have received, or not when they’ve should have, at the hands of the Police or Judiciary System.

    I’ve said all I had to say ABOUT Dr. Nigel Oldfield, in clear, concise and precise terms.
    I will not defend him, in a presumption of innocence, nor will I attack him, safeguarding the rights of the victims in the case of him being guilty of committing a crime. That is a job for Justice, and we here have no intention in assuming its responsibilities. It’s in Court that both accusation and defense should present their argumentation, freely and without outside pressure, and it’s there that the defended should be, or not condemned.

    What I have to say TO Dr, Nigel Oldfield is that I intend to exercise my right to freedom of speech, and, freely choose not to speak to him.

    No further comments on Dr. Nigel Oldfield will be allowed here.

  22. Keep up the good work, we are all fighting for the same thing.



Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.